Welcome To Zelo Street!

This is a blog of liberal stance and independent mind

Thursday, 28 December 2017

Mail Harasses Single Mum

As if the obedient hackery of the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre does not already have a grim enough reputation, it seems that they have sunk yet further by sending one of their number to snoop on a single mum - in direct and blatant contravention of the IPSO Editor’s Code of Conduct, which Dacre had a significant hand in devising and maintaining.

She's called Charlotte Wace. And she's bang out of order

The victim of this latest in a series of less than totally professional episodes is a young woman called Danielle Hindley, who has been approached by a representative of the Mail on Sunday. Yes, I know the excuses: it’s a totally different paper to the Daily Mail, with its own editor and often its own editorial line. But the editor-in-chief of the MoS is still Paul Dacre. And its hacks work for the same Rothermere press.

So let’s not have the “look over there” outbursts, just because they’ve been caught bang to rights with their hands in the proverbial till once again. Instead, let’s see who the MoS sent to do their dirty deed, and a little on their past form.

The hack identified as Ms Hindley’s unwelcome visitor is called Charlotte Wace, and her back catalogue includes a credit for the “Transgender lessons for 2 year olds” hatchet job. As Ms Hindley told, “This is the journalist that came in to my home, had a hidden camera on me & my little boy trying to write a story based on lies from a past client that harassed me and was issued a harassment order by the police”.

If the part about a hidden camera is true, the MoS has busted the Editor’s Code. When Ms Hindley Tweeted “Straight from the IPSO website ... Looking forward to getting a response”, she linked to an Instagram post showing the code’s Section 2: Privacy.

What happened then was worrying. “Update: Mail have been in touch with the source, told her to remove and adjust things on her social media that incriminate her as the source. It really is a little late for that now I already have screenshots of everything I need to back my case … @dailymailuk have blocked me too”. Why block her?

The MoS ought to be cooperating with Ms Hindley, not being evasive. The consequence of their participation was all too clear: “And the harassment continues. 6th report to police done tonight. As if the @DailyMailUK are aiding and abetting this nonsense. You tell her to adjust her fb to remove incriminating posts and she tells everyone. She then sets up fake fb profile and fake twitter to troll me”. And the effect on Ms Hindley was equally clear.

“Well had about 20hrs sleep in the last week. Haven't fallen asleep before 5am since the @DailyMailUK came into my home undercover and filmed me and my son based on lies from someone who has previously been issued a harassment order. Happy to say it’s midnight and I am SLEEPY”. So a complaint has been submitted.

This came complete with a “Merry Christmas” message. But so far there has been nothing more from the Northcliffe House bunker. After their clumsy intervention, that’s not good enough. The MoS has messed up big time and they now know it.

The least they could do is to say sorry. But the Mail titles aren’t big enough to do that.

Update. The mail have made an offer of resolution to my complaint still on going with the IPSO. I have rejected the offer. However the article is still being distributed on various beauty platforms and had 5 months later reduced my income by more than 80%. I have have to take a second job to get by to avoid claiming benefits. I am trolled daily by people who do not realise the truth. My son is now being bullied at school over this. The villagers where I live gossip about me non stop. I am trying my best financially to move out of the village now. They have wrecked my business and made our home no longer our home. My mental health is now on the mend but the damage they have done to us is unforgivable. Hoping that the IPSO do right on this. They have breached 6 clauses on the editors code. And various points on each clause. I will not stop fighting this until I have fair justice. What they are doing is completely wrong and they know it. I now have possession of 45 mins of the 1 hour 45 min visit. They have conveniently misplaced an hour of footage. The plot thickens so much on this. If anyone who sees this has any way of helping me with this I will welcome any help and advice. This article really helped my mood again today. So much has happened since and I am keen to get the truth out and expose them for what they have done. Danielle Hindley